Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "In the ever lasting contest for the most idiotic lawsuit, RealNetworks has sued a Dutch man for posting a link to a competing freeware program that allegedly infringes on RealNetworks' intellectual property. The company also secretly obtained a court order that resulted in confiscation of all computers belonging to the man and his family. The 26-year-old has already incurred over €66,000 in legal fees and if he loses the case, he's facing €210,000 in fines. Where are the Anonymous when you need them?"

If it's a communication site, instant, free form or whatever, then "communication" is important to it. If you're going to write garbage that is confusing or senseless, then you are not "communicating". You are failing at communicating. The fact that you see other's problem about this as "pedantic crap" just demonstrates that you are also totally failing to understand communication from people. Does it not worry you that you are misunderstanding so much that goes on here? Are you not concerned that no

Yup. The "real" funny part is that Real killed themselves by turning their product into a PC-suffocating piece of bloatware. Real Alternative was a direct response to that exact bloat. I'd be laughing if it weren't so sad for the defendant.

Now, this dates back/years/ ago but at some point I was really happy with the RealPlayer that I decided to license it. It was simply awesome; I started it up and could view just about anything. From US news broadcasts to Japanese TV series right down to stuff from India and Germany. (this was "pre-Youtube" time so to speak).

Then other solutions emerged (and my interest slowly waned) but guess what? Next time I started the app. (a few years later) I was greeted with "you should upgrade!", which I didn't do. Why? I was happy with the way it was.

Add another few months and this time I wasn't able to run the program anymore period. "You need to upgrade" was all which was said, of course without any options for a real upgrade. I could pick another "free" player and that was basically it. My paid for enhancements were gone. Heck; my whole player was gone.

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT... Just set your disdain aside for a moment and look at the realplayer product page [real.com]. Question: do you see anything there which hints at upgrade options for existing users ? Well, there aren't any.

Realplayer was the best learning experience for me (and all in all not/that/ expensive fortunately) to never buy anything from Real networks again.

There WAS an upgrade policy. I was upgraded. but the whole nature of the program had changed (to a gigantic piece of shit) and I no longer wanted it. Meanwhile operating systems change under programs due to updates and sometimes break them.

This is just another reason why Free and Open software is superior for the user, and why we should spend our money supporting it instead of buying commercial, proprietary, closed-source software.

Indeed. I remember back in the day when all the websites offering any kind of streaming did it in RealMedia and some of them offered Quicktime as an alternative. Real was pretty big then and everyone had RealPlayer installed. Then gradually RealPlayer started getting larger and larger, adding this or that to it so that it wasn't merely a player anymore, and its usage seemed to drop sharply. At the same time Windows Media started gaining popularity for streaming, and it took a surprisingly short amount of ti

Damn'd. Now RealNetworks will confiscate all the/. servers. See what have you done?

Not only that, apparently they'd have the power to confiscate all the desktop and laptop computers of Slashdot editors' families as well if interpret this precedent correctly. To me, this is the most disturbing part of the entire thing. There is no way all of their computers are connected in any meaningful way to the site that this guy ran. Also, it's apparently enough to be related to an alleged copyright infringer in order for them to come and take your stuff away.

Please no. Do not use anything that reads their format, it will only encourage them. Any content you find in the format can be found elsewhere in other formats. Make sure any outlet that puts out stuff in their format that you are getting stuff elsewhere instead. Let the format and what is left of their business model die the death it so richly deserves.

Surely this is a prime case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? The point in RealAlternative is to be able to play back media encoded using RealNetworks' formats, without having to install RealPlayer. I haven't seen anything encoded in those formats for several years, meaning I've had no use for either RealPlayer or RealAlternative. Does *anyone* still use either?

However, Edskes wasn’t hosting the software, but just redirected to other sites for the actual download. The complaint turned out to be based on a hyperlink to the software.

so far so good: he linked to some software, one can argue if this is illegal - but anyway.

RealNetworks claims Edskes failed to remove the link to the software, and the reference in the DNS directories existed after February 12, 2010. However, the hosting provider checked backups and confirmed the removal of the link.

WTF? either the complaint is based on hyperlinks or DNS redirects (did he use different subdomains for the codec packs?). it shouldn't be too hard to write one stringent and logical artical about this case.

I'm not sure if Slashdot is doing a Google and providing context relevant quotes or it was just pure chance, but the quote at the bottem of my page today sure seems relevant to this story and the state of Real networks - " For certain people, after fifty, litigation takes the place of sex. -- Gore Vidal"

I am considering removing all hyperlinks from my private website and possibly replace them with a link to a Google search that might return the page. Can't risk your life being destroyed nowadays by a stupid hyperlink.

The article title is a bit disingenuous. RealAlternative is NOT freeware. It is simply Real's codecs, repackaged without the adware crap and player software. Now on the scale of copyright infringement this is pretty insignificant, but the codecs are still Real's property and it is their prerogative to decide the terms under which the software is distributed. I'm pretty sure the terms forbid repackaging and redistribution of the codecs.

On the other hand, it's also incredulous that linking is deemed illegal. That's just bullshit. They should go after whoever distributed the repackaged codecs, not people who link to said site.

Actually, I'm not sure RealAlternative is even needed anymore. VLC/ffdshow/ffmpeg support all the RealVideo codecs, and also RealAudio with the single exception of the SIPR codec.

Well-known websites like chip.de [www.chip.de] still link to and actually host Real Alternative 2.0.2 files, even Wikipedia has a link. â66.000 seem to indicate that the man has a terrible lawyer and/or corrupt judge...

that is beyond the point. If you have the money you can use the justice system to intimidate or even destroy whoever you want. Worked wonder so far. I suppose unless some despaired citizen takes justice in his/her own hands (the shotgun sort of) or by a miracle the law production facilities around the globe (US Congress, European parliaments etc) change something to make such actions more difficult nothing will change. Just to be clear: I think that IP is not necessarily a bad thing but I think it went into

The only thing that happens if a despaired citizen takes the law in their own hands with a shotgun is that we lose (even) more privacy and citizen rights. Governments only "treat" the effects, not the causes.

FYI, no mention of patents in TFA. They are complaining about trademarks and copyrights. Does RealNetworks own the word "Real"? Only as much as Facebook should own the word "Book", if you ask me. I would understand if RealNetworks had some patents that were violated by the freeware in question, but copyrights? Does the freeware actually use RealNetworks' original dlls to decode the video perhaps? Or is this some dickheaded anti-circumvention thing? Whatever the case, I think RealNetworks are being real assholes here.

They own it within the context. "Real Alternative" that obviously is similar software etc (well, just see the name) does violate it. Facebook also owns both parts of their name within the same context. That's how Facebook shut down the adult website that mimicked their name and style.

Yeah, except the Real Alternative package is NOT actually freeware, but basically distributes the *actual* Real Player DLLs that it uses to decode with a wrapper. That's pretty clearly a copyright infringement (criminal one in fact, as it was willful and widely distributed, which generally counts as "commercial").

Real Networks IMO is a total bottom feeder company and I'd personally never install their software, but one thing I hate more than d-bag companies like Real is blatant misinformation, and this article is full of it...

Maybe parts of that software are infringing, but it was still released as freeware -- that's not misinformation on the article's part. It does look like it uses RealNetworks' dlls to play the video like I assumed, but even then -- what does RealNetworks hope to achieve by going after this obviously discontinued piece of software, especially when there are open source implementations that are real alternatives (har har)? Even their own open source Helix player is a Real Alternative alternative... Sounds like

Well, I think you were the first person even to suggest the fact that the package copied Real's DLLs - everyone else just assumed it was an open source implementation like ffmpeg. That makes it pretty misleading information in my opinion...

But anyway, this wasn't really even about that obviously infringing software - it was about some guy who linked to it, where it's not even clear he didn't take down his link after asked. I hope the guy hires an even more expensive lawyer and then makes Real pay for him

But anyway, this wasn't really even about that obviously infringing software

Which is why I don't think the article was being misleading -- they just didn't focus on that aspect at all since it wasn't relevant to the story. In my view, it's the developer of the software who misled because he is the one who released it as "freeware" in the first place, not the poor bastard caught linking to it. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree...

Still doesn't make it right to get a secret court order to inflict willful damage on a person's property. And then media act all astonished when somebody decide to takes his rights, his rifle, and a couple of grenades in his own hands.

If justice is so obviously corrupted, it is no longer justice. And people will go back to doing what they were doing before there was a functioning justice system in place.

Putting aside for the moment that it would be Dutch law in question here, NO. Just because Real's actions are not explicitly illegal, that doesn't get them off the ethical hook. They are dirty bastards and their attack lawyers need a public flogging.

Well, I'm not going to defend Real-Player, but a Dutch new article [webwereld.nl] about the issue suggests Real initially assumed the site was actively distributing the software. They came back on that in court, so now there is just linking left. It makes them look kind of stupid, complaining about illegal software but not being able to determine where the actual download is from.

My gut feeling is Real will loose this (and they should), and in the Netherlands this means REAL will most likely have to cough up the the legal fees for this bloke.

They may well have thought that, but there is a duty to perform basic fact checking AND attempt an amicable resolution before taking anything to court. If they had done that, they could have saved a great deal of embarrassment and avoided creating a lot of difficulty for Edskes. They clearly decided to sue first and ask questions later. In doing that, they demonstrated a callous disregard for everyone but themselves.

They should be forced to pay a lot more than just the legal fees in compensation since the man's computers have all been seized without just cause. I don't know what Dutch law does about that.

But if we are gonna go by American laws shouldn't they be busted for spyware? Because realnetworks has a history of dodgy practices when it comes to their player.

That said I have to ask a question...is it popular over there or something? Seriously who the fuck uses Real anything anymore? I used to install Real Alternative along with QT alternative but frankly i dropped RA something like 4 years ago and nobody even noticed because Real files are like 8 tracks. Sure you might find some somewhere in the backwo

Sounds like something some silly little teenager would say. And has nothing to do with TFA.

Yeah, except for current events relating to vigilante action against corporations that harass people and draw the ire of a large group of reasonably tech savvy people with something to prove. Other than that, totally unrelated.

There are lots of video's on the websites of the national government. This [rijksoverheid.nl] is just one example, but there's a lot more. There's a whole team dedicated within the Ministry of General Affairs to the production of video's.

So, by your own logic, when you mention to your friend to "take care" around that drug den down the road, you should be put in jail for aiding and abetting the drug trade. We see links to goatse here all the time. The image itself is morally wrong, but the links are not. *IF* Real Alternative is in fact breaking the law then Real Alternative should be held accountable - Not some poor schmuck who simply says "look at this" via a link.

What you are advocating is akin to thought crime. If you don't conform and think the way "we" tell you too, you should be punished. The problem is just who gets to decide what is "right". In every single instance or situation. What happens when this so called "right" does not align with your own personal views? Do you bend over and let them spank you until you see the light? Sorry, but I'm sure glad I don't live in your world and can make up my own mind what links I'll visit, what software I'll install, or even what I'll have for lunch today.

So we should make google and other search engines illegal? They link to the "illegal content" all the time and they know it (just try to search for piratebay).
Also if i write an article on my blog about file-sharing and include link to the pirate-bay, i shall be prosecuted according to your logic?
No! Making linking to dubious content ilegal is serious threat to free speech. Czech pirate party is currently fighting for the right to link by launching the site http://tipnafilm.cz/ [tipnafilm.cz] where they link to several

If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.

This is a fair suggestion, but in this case nothing has been proven to be illegal about this content. RealNetworks claim patent infringement, but has this been proven in a court of law? Until it has, how is anyone supposed to know if it's illegal or not? If I lay claim to patents on iPods, does that mean the entire internet has to sit up, take notice, and stop linking to Apple's website?

Besides that, it is unreasonable to demand that every website owner to be fully acquainted to the legal status of the software they may link to. If it appears to be genuine freeware, how are they supposed to know?

Lastly, and this really should be taken into consideration; RealNetworks were giving their software away for free, with an entirely reasonable business model financed in other ways. All they had to do was ensure their end-users liked it and found it useful. But instead they turned it into a sucky, monstrously bloated, intrusive piece of crap that people (and their computers) hated. They only have themselves to blame if users sought out an alternative.

If you link to a web page that contains illegal content, you are abetting in a crime.

Lastly, and this really should be taken into consideration; RealNetworks were giving their software away for free, with an entirely reasonable business model financed in other ways. All they had to do was ensure their end-users liked it and found it useful. But instead they turned it into a sucky, monstrously bloated, intrusive piece of crap that people (and their computers) hated. They only have themselves to blame if users sought out an alternative.

The reality of the legal system is that your opinion of RealNetworks business model has nothing to do with the legal status of anything. If the judge feels that way, he may let it sway him within his range of legal options, but he still should not let it decide the legality / illegality of an action.

Fuzzy middle ground my ass, it's freeware developed from the ground up and he didn't even make it, he merely linked to it.

I assume by "freeware developed from the ground up" you mean "an installer and a few download utilities plus a packaged install of Media Player Classic packaged alongside the codec files right out of Real's own installation package" which is what Real Alternative really is/was - immensely useful for the end-user, but a legal minefield waiting to happen by using Real's own codec files in there.

I doubt RealNetworks care about that. Nobody uses real media any more anyway.

I didn't know about the Real Alternative until this case got filed, and now I've just downloaded Real Alternative and installed it on two PC's. YES! No more stupid RealNetworks bullshit to put up with. It is sad the Dutch webmaster had to be sued, but the rest of the world benefits. I guess in a backwards way, Thank You RealNetworks, for bringing this to my attention.

Oh, one person still uses it? I guess RealNetworks just lost their last customer then...